Subject of the proceeding is a Chilean-German dual national (P.) who hosted five Polish homeless citizens that were being trafficked for the purpose of stealing groceries, electronics and cosmetics by the family A. Two female victims were additionally forced to solicit prostitution, did, however, never engage in any paid sexual activity. P. was approached by a female member of the family A. after the victims were recruited and transported to Berlin, Germany. He was asked to host not only the five victims but also three perpetrators in his 2-bedroom-apartment, which was also used to temporarily store stolen goods. Victims were not allowed to leave the apartment without a member of A. present. During the night, P. locked the main door without revealing the location of the keys.
GermanyDue the passive behavior of the defendant, the court primarily focused on appreciating evidence which indicated that P. must have known that victims were being exploited for criminal activities. First of all, due to the very limited living conditions in his apartment, P. must have known that the Polish nationals found themselves in an exploitative situation. Victims appearances, their poor hygiene, the fact that only little food was given to them, and the fact that large amounts of goods were stored in the apartment, were considered sufficient indication for exploitation and criminal activity. Further, victims never changed their clothes, did not carry any luggage, and showed clear signs of physical abuse. P. must have realized that the victims’ situation of vulnerability (homelessness, unable to communication, alcohol addiction etc.) were being abused by family A. for the purpose of committing criminal acts and forced prostitution. Even when specifically requested by a victim, P. did not only refuse to get help but supported the trafficking situation by locking the victims in his apartment at night.
The court concluded that P. accommodated victims of trafficking in the knowledge that they were being exploited and abused by an organized criminal group. By doing so, P. committed an act of harboring within the definition of human trafficking, violated the provision on illegal deprivation of liberty, and supported the commission of theft.
For the calculation of the sentence, the court took into account that P.’s himself can be considered a victim of the criminal activities of family A who coerced him into taking up a bank loan and transferring the money to one of the family members. Further, as this constitute the first misdemeanor of P., the sentence can be executed on parole. A parole officer was instructed to assist P. in preventing the occurrence of a similar situation and help P. to overcome his loneliness, which the defendant claimed was the main driver for his actions.
Please note that decisions of courts of the federal states are not directly binding nationwide.
Human Trafficking for forced labour and forced prostitution (harbouring)
Landesgericht Berlin
The decision touches upon indicators of vulnerability and the abuse of the position of vulnerability as a means in the offence of trafficking in persons.